"So, the R&A let the fox into the hen house. But rest assured they have closed the door behind him."

Tom Doak posts at Golf Club Atlas about the World Golf Architecture Forum in St. Andrews last weekend where the assembled archies heard from Steve Otto, head of the R&A's equipment testing...

who showed a bunch of raw data to assure us all that the average driving distance on all the tours has been unchanged since 2003.  It's 287 yards on the PGA Tour and about the same on the European Tour, and 240 on the LPGA and WET tours.  [Unfortunately, I didn't understand for sure whether that is the average length of every tee shot on par-4's and 5's, or whether it really is the average for every time the players hit driver.]

I was able to ask the first question after his presentation, so I asked:  "Accepting that your data is correct, and there has been no gain in distance among Tour players since the last Open at St. Andrews, then why did anyone feel there needed to be a new tee 30 yards back on the Road hole?"

He responded that the change was not about lengthening the hole but about "strategy," an official position which he was at pains to explain.  He was clearly uncomfortable trying to defend it, because the tee obviously isn't his doing.

However, in his subsequent remarks, he warned all the golf course architects that a shorter ball would be unpopular and might cause players to quit the game -- which is the manufacturers' p.r. line.  And he casually mentioned an agreement with the manufacturers that the R & A will act on the ball only if their data shows that the driving distance is increasing from the 2002 standard of 287 yards.

I can certainly understand the notion that a rollback would scare off some, but has anyone with the governing bodies ever explained the decline in participation while driving distances were increasing?